Churches and Foxholes
By Brad the Wistful Atheist
Since I still live with my Seventh-Day Adventist father, I have the opportunity to read the faith building magazine they send out to all members, the Adventist Review. In a recent article for the Adventist Review entitled "Ash Tuesday," William G. Johnsson makes an impassioned case for fear and superstition. Human beings are inherently scared of death and Johnsson plays upon this fear in his article by trotting out the tragedy of September 11th. Through most of the first page of the article, Johnsson weaves a clever web to catch the weak minded. After recreating the horror of the terrorist attacks, Johnsson goes on to warn that people will no longer be safe anywhere, implying that we should be in constant fear for our lives.
Johnsson also makes a point to subtly imply reasons for the attack. Though he never explicitly states it, Johnsson seems to think that America was taken down because of excessive hubris, or pride. He quotes one historian as saying, "Before Tuesday, we all thought we were going to get richer and richer and we would all live forever," suggesting that Americans should have been focused on being poor and dead. Johnsson also quotes another author as declaring, "If anything, the terrorist attacks were the ugly finale to a gilded age for business. In their wake it's clear that the drivers of the great bull market of the 1990's -- profits and productivity -- must now take a backseat to people, security, and . . . armed conflict." It seems we were too wealthy for our own good. Making money is an ugly thing. Perhaps God was with the attackers because they came from a poor country, obsessed with the afterlife.
Having established that Americans were too productive, too wealthy, too happy, and should now presumably try to be unproductive, poor, miserable, and living in constant fear, and to go church more, he starts deriding atheists. He comments, "Have you noticed how all the churches are suddenly full? How the atheists have fallen silent?" There are two big things amiss with his observations. For one, the fact that churches fill up when people are scared and confused is not very interesting. People want a pastor to tell them that God is still good and that everything will be alright, much like frightened children running to mom and dad for comfort. It simply shows that people often act like sheep in need of a leader.
Second, he asserts that the atheists have fallen silent. This is another way of saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." One wonders what he expected atheists to say. Christians and believers from other faiths had an intense need to rationalize the attacks, to convince themselves that God was not asleep on the job. Did the atheists have any such need? Of course not. Studying the bloody effects religion has had on the world in the past is clear evidence to the atheist that believers are capable of the most despicable acts. And there was no need for atheists to absolve a God from responsibility for the attacks of religious fanatics. It was not atheists who fell silent, but the religious who suddenly needed to loudly justify their faith. No rational person would find evidence of a benevolent, omnipotent God in that tragedy, but the faithful sure tried.
Atheists were talking about the events, but it is unlikely that Johnsson took the time to listen. Johnsson comments that "a few voices have attempted to rationalize or relativize the attacks on the towers and the Pentagon, but most people refuse to give them the time of day." By this, Johnsson is likely talking about rational atheists who tried to find out what conditions led up to the attacks. Since Johnsson supports ignoring these voices that he disagrees with, it is not too big a stretch to assume that he also ignored atheists in the days after the attacks.
Johnsson also brings out the old morality argument. "For a generation now, people have been fed the lie that everything is relative, that right and wrong, good and evil, are meaningless ideas." It is not clear through what persons or groups Johnsson believes this lie has been spread. No doubt it was spread by secular humanists, witches, and the liberal media. But seriously, has this generation really been taught that there is no right or wrong? When Kurt Cobaine committed suicide, did his fans lament his death or did they say, "It was neither good nor bad that he took his life." When O.J. Simpson was acquitted of double homicide, did this generation have any opinions about whether it was the right or wrong verdict? Just because people disagree about morality, and bad things happen, does not mean that morality is absent.
The argument that relative morality has been taught to my generation (Y, I believe), is without merit. What Johnsson really means is that the conservative Christian community's current concept of morality is not accepted in the mainstream. Abortion is legal, homosexuals are not burned at the stake and neither are witches or pagans, infidels are allowed to criticize the Bible without being subjected to the rack, the United States isn't a theocracy. The whole world is going straight to Hell. Johnsson's appeal to absolute morality is simply a plea for implementation of the Christian rules of morality on everyone else. He is preaching to the choir. Christians don't want just any "absolute morality." They want their absolute morality. Absolutely Christian morality. And anyone who doesn't want the same thing is part of the problem.
When Christians talk about moral standards declining (i.e. deviating from the Christian model, it reminds me of when speakers tell an audience of older folks, "I can remember when the parents were in charge! Back in the good old days." This always results in uproarious applause. Presumably the audience members are thinking, "Yeah, I remember that too! It was back in 1957 when my parents used to beat the shit out of me." Speaking as a former Christian, in the Christian mind "morality" and "Christianity" are mutually inclusive, while any other belief system and morality are mutually exclusive.
But by far the funniest section of the article is where Johnsson tries to excuse God for not protecting the U.S., but at the same time promises that God will make everything better . . . some day. "He permits them [tragic events], but not forever. The day is coming when God will say: "That's enough! No more of this killing, this destruction, this unchecked evil, this suffering, this death. Enough!" For some reason God did not think enough evil had happened before September 11th, so he decided not to intervene when the terrorists attacked.
God sure is slow to anger, but oh boy, someday those terrorists are going to get such a talking to! As described by Christians in the face of tragedy, God seems to be incredibly impotent. He COULD do something, but he is not fed up with human suffering yet. He doesn't quite care enough to get up and help. My guess is that God will be long dead before folks find out he disappeared without fulfilling his promises.
By Brad the Wistful Atheist
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Johnsson also makes a point to subtly imply reasons for the attack. Though he never explicitly states it, Johnsson seems to think that America was taken down because of excessive hubris, or pride. He quotes one historian as saying, "Before Tuesday, we all thought we were going to get richer and richer and we would all live forever," suggesting that Americans should have been focused on being poor and dead. Johnsson also quotes another author as declaring, "If anything, the terrorist attacks were the ugly finale to a gilded age for business. In their wake it's clear that the drivers of the great bull market of the 1990's -- profits and productivity -- must now take a backseat to people, security, and . . . armed conflict." It seems we were too wealthy for our own good. Making money is an ugly thing. Perhaps God was with the attackers because they came from a poor country, obsessed with the afterlife.
Having established that Americans were too productive, too wealthy, too happy, and should now presumably try to be unproductive, poor, miserable, and living in constant fear, and to go church more, he starts deriding atheists. He comments, "Have you noticed how all the churches are suddenly full? How the atheists have fallen silent?" There are two big things amiss with his observations. For one, the fact that churches fill up when people are scared and confused is not very interesting. People want a pastor to tell them that God is still good and that everything will be alright, much like frightened children running to mom and dad for comfort. It simply shows that people often act like sheep in need of a leader.
Second, he asserts that the atheists have fallen silent. This is another way of saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." One wonders what he expected atheists to say. Christians and believers from other faiths had an intense need to rationalize the attacks, to convince themselves that God was not asleep on the job. Did the atheists have any such need? Of course not. Studying the bloody effects religion has had on the world in the past is clear evidence to the atheist that believers are capable of the most despicable acts. And there was no need for atheists to absolve a God from responsibility for the attacks of religious fanatics. It was not atheists who fell silent, but the religious who suddenly needed to loudly justify their faith. No rational person would find evidence of a benevolent, omnipotent God in that tragedy, but the faithful sure tried.
Atheists were talking about the events, but it is unlikely that Johnsson took the time to listen. Johnsson comments that "a few voices have attempted to rationalize or relativize the attacks on the towers and the Pentagon, but most people refuse to give them the time of day." By this, Johnsson is likely talking about rational atheists who tried to find out what conditions led up to the attacks. Since Johnsson supports ignoring these voices that he disagrees with, it is not too big a stretch to assume that he also ignored atheists in the days after the attacks.
Johnsson also brings out the old morality argument. "For a generation now, people have been fed the lie that everything is relative, that right and wrong, good and evil, are meaningless ideas." It is not clear through what persons or groups Johnsson believes this lie has been spread. No doubt it was spread by secular humanists, witches, and the liberal media. But seriously, has this generation really been taught that there is no right or wrong? When Kurt Cobaine committed suicide, did his fans lament his death or did they say, "It was neither good nor bad that he took his life." When O.J. Simpson was acquitted of double homicide, did this generation have any opinions about whether it was the right or wrong verdict? Just because people disagree about morality, and bad things happen, does not mean that morality is absent.
The argument that relative morality has been taught to my generation (Y, I believe), is without merit. What Johnsson really means is that the conservative Christian community's current concept of morality is not accepted in the mainstream. Abortion is legal, homosexuals are not burned at the stake and neither are witches or pagans, infidels are allowed to criticize the Bible without being subjected to the rack, the United States isn't a theocracy. The whole world is going straight to Hell. Johnsson's appeal to absolute morality is simply a plea for implementation of the Christian rules of morality on everyone else. He is preaching to the choir. Christians don't want just any "absolute morality." They want their absolute morality. Absolutely Christian morality. And anyone who doesn't want the same thing is part of the problem.
When Christians talk about moral standards declining (i.e. deviating from the Christian model, it reminds me of when speakers tell an audience of older folks, "I can remember when the parents were in charge! Back in the good old days." This always results in uproarious applause. Presumably the audience members are thinking, "Yeah, I remember that too! It was back in 1957 when my parents used to beat the shit out of me." Speaking as a former Christian, in the Christian mind "morality" and "Christianity" are mutually inclusive, while any other belief system and morality are mutually exclusive.
But by far the funniest section of the article is where Johnsson tries to excuse God for not protecting the U.S., but at the same time promises that God will make everything better . . . some day. "He permits them [tragic events], but not forever. The day is coming when God will say: "That's enough! No more of this killing, this destruction, this unchecked evil, this suffering, this death. Enough!" For some reason God did not think enough evil had happened before September 11th, so he decided not to intervene when the terrorists attacked.
God sure is slow to anger, but oh boy, someday those terrorists are going to get such a talking to! As described by Christians in the face of tragedy, God seems to be incredibly impotent. He COULD do something, but he is not fed up with human suffering yet. He doesn't quite care enough to get up and help. My guess is that God will be long dead before folks find out he disappeared without fulfilling his promises.
January 26, 2002